AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by Goodspeed »

yemshi wrote:Horrible idea. Should you pick a very boomy/etc. deck you commit on something and you deserve to be awarded with that. If your port deck runs with 5 eco ups you deserve to have a better late game eco compared to the port player who puts the explorer card, rangefinding, ronin, 8 halbs and 600f in.
Also commiting under a TC with the knowledge that 5 ronin could pop up there *anytime* is just abnoxious.

It removes strategial options.
If you choose to not run 3 caravels in exchange for 1k coin you deserve to lose water.
If you decide to not put in CM, etc...
It seperates good players from worse players. Anticipation, adaption, game sense.
I don't think you deserve to have better late game by picking a late game deck. The fact that you can lose because you're missing a card is actually one of the things I don't like about AoE3. Rather you deserve to have better late game by sending economic upgrades in a timely fashion.
If you choose to not send 3 caravels instead of 1k coin you deserve to lose water.
If you decide to not send CM you deserve to lose to a rush.
It removes strategial options.
I don't see how. Elaborate?

Anyway, I don't agree, but more importantly it would seem that many people who wrote AoE3 off because of the HC system also don't agree. It's mostly them this would cater to. For us, it wouldn't make much difference. Only rarely do deck choices actually decide games.
User avatar
Germany yemshi
Jaeger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Jun 3, 2015
ESO: yemshi
Location: Germany

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by yemshi »

If you know that you will be able to outeco/ outrush/outplay your opponent based on his deck you have more safety. You can rush if you don't see 8xbows in his deck. You can starve / deny trees him if he doesn't have 700f/ 1k wood to bulld mills.
You can know that you will outeco him. You can know that you will win water if he doesn't have a sea deck and play according to that.
I find it unfair to give your opponent the option to react to literally anything.

I see that I poorly phrased my idea.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by Goodspeed »

And this adds options how exactly? It gives you information, sure, but I don't see how it adds options. What it obviously does do is remove options, because you can only send 25/130 cards.
User avatar
Germany yemshi
Jaeger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Jun 3, 2015
ESO: yemshi
Location: Germany

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by yemshi »

If you don't pick that sea deck you can't contest water.
Your opponent could just go full water and win.
Removing a strategial option by allowing anything doesn't seem fair and as a factor of good plays.
I can see why you argue that way but I still don't agree.
A deck is a deck. You picked, you play with it.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by Goodspeed »

If you don't pick that sea deck you can't contest water.
Your opponent could just go full water and win.
So the player who didn't pick a water deck just effectively forced both players into a certain play style? And that's somehow adding options?
Do you at least see my point about increasing our playerbase? Because that's the main reason I brought this up.
User avatar
Germany yemshi
Jaeger
Posts: 2311
Joined: Jun 3, 2015
ESO: yemshi
Location: Germany

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by yemshi »

I do. You chose that playstyle yourself.
Unsure whether it increases the playerbase.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by Garja »

It's not about adding options but removing them. Having every option available would prove broken and benefit some civs more than others.
Definitely interesting to try but I'm pretty sure I would prefer the deck option.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

  • Quote

Post by Goodspeed »

I think it could actually be very fun. People could end up sending very unexpected cards, and we may be looking at it and go "wait, that might actually be viable in some situations". Especially if AoE3DE improves card balance, the variety of cards being sent would jump significantly with this change.
Having every option available would prove broken and benefit some civs more than others.
:hmm: how?
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by Garja »

With more cards becoming viable it makes even more sense to have a limited deck because decks for specific strats would be a thing.
I mean, aside from water related cards at the moment you miss 2-3 slots at worst.
I think that limited decks add to the strategy by pre-limiting options.
The no deck thing would be an interesting additional game mode but less competitive imo.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Canada Mitoe
Advanced Theory Craftsman
Posts: 5486
Joined: Aug 23, 2015
ESO: Mitoe
GameRanger ID: 346407

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by Mitoe »

Goodspeed wrote:
Having every option available would prove broken and benefit some civs more than others.
:hmm: how?

I'm not sure if it would truly be broken, but it would definitely benefit some civs more than others in certain situations.

For example:

Say you're playing Germany; with the deck system it is simply not worth it to have economic upgrades in your deck because you risk sacrificing your mid-game, which is where Germany is strongest.

Now, your opponent is playing Iroquois. A civ whose military could arguably compete with yours in the mid-game.

Your game happens to stalemate in the mid-game and drag into the lategame. In a normal supremacy gameā€”unless the German player has specifically structured their deck for this sort of situationā€”this lategame scenario is not that bad for Iroquois. Iroquois military arguably outscales yours, but they lack access to things like factories. Iroquois ends up with a slightly better military, but a slightly weaker lategame economy: an imbalance, but a healthy one.

Remove the deck system, however, and suddenly in this same situation Germany suddenly has access to 11 lategame eco upgrades (when normally they would only have 3 or 4 in their deck at most), while Iroquois has only 2. All Germany has to do to win the game now is stall until their economy wins them the game.


Each civilizations cards are different, with different emphases placed on different types of cards or playstyles, and a lot of civs are not even close to equal in specific scenarios. Native civilizations in particular would suffer more greatly than other civs, as they tend to lack significant economic or military upgrades.

To conclude, while the change would not affect the majority of games too much, in certain situations it would be very difficult for some civs to compete without significant additions or changes to the current select of cards in the homecities, which may be somewhat too large of an undertaking.


Yemshi also does have something of a point that it would limit the information you can gleam from the opponent, but I don't agree with him that it reduces options: it would change a few of the ways you currently scout and adapt to your opponent, but honestly I rarely see people actually check their opponents decks, much less adapt to them. The biggest difference here would be on water maps or when a player intends to do something like a Fast Industrial, where they don't have to limit their options in order to get the necessary cards for their strategy into their deck.


Maybe increasing the card limit from 25 to 27 or 28 might be a decent alternative to the removing decks suggestion? That way you can at least include some more niche age 1 or age 4 cards and keep your options a little bit more open that way. Perhaps even increasing the card limit per age from 10 to 11 at the same time, but I'm not certain that a change of this sort is at all necessary.

Edit: as an aside, it would be interesting to see if people would ever use something like the 1 culv shipment if the deck system was removed.
User avatar
United States of America _H2O
ESOC Business Team
Donator 06
Posts: 3409
Joined: Aug 20, 2016
ESO: _H2O

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by _H2O »

Mitoe wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:
Having every option available would prove broken and benefit some civs more than others.
:hmm: how?

I'm not sure if it would truly be broken, but it would definitely benefit some civs more than others in certain situations.

For example:

Say you're playing Germany; with the deck system it is simply not worth it to have economic upgrades in your deck because you risk sacrificing your mid-game, which is where Germany is strongest.

Now, your opponent is playing Iroquois. A civ whose military could arguably compete with yours in the mid-game.

Your game happens to stalemate in the mid-game and drag into the lategame. In a normal supremacy gameā€”unless the German player has specifically structured their deck for this sort of situationā€”this lategame scenario is not that bad for Iroquois. Iroquois military arguably outscales yours, but they lack access to things like factories. Iroquois ends up with a slightly better military, but a slightly weaker lategame economy: an imbalance, but a healthy one.

Remove the deck system, however, and suddenly in this same situation Germany suddenly has access to 11 lategame eco upgrades (when normally they would only have 3 or 4 in their deck at most), while Iroquois has only 2. All Germany has to do to win the game now is stall until their economy wins them the game.


Each civilizations cards are different, with different emphases placed on different types of cards or playstyles, and a lot of civs are not even close to equal in specific scenarios. Native civilizations in particular would suffer more greatly than other civs, as they tend to lack significant economic or military upgrades.

To conclude, while the change would not affect the majority of games too much, in certain situations it would be very difficult for some civs to compete without significant additions or changes to the current select of cards in the homecities, which may be somewhat too large of an undertaking.


Yemshi also does have something of a point that it would limit the information you can gleam from the opponent, but I don't agree with him that it reduces options: it would change a few of the ways you currently scout and adapt to your opponent, but honestly I rarely see people actually check their opponents decks, much less adapt to them. The biggest difference here would be on water maps or when a player intends to do something like a Fast Industrial, where they don't have to limit their options in order to get the necessary cards for their strategy into their deck.


Maybe increasing the card limit from 25 to 27 or 28 might be a decent alternative to the removing decks suggestion? That way you can at least include some more niche age 1 or age 4 cards and keep your options a little bit more open that way. Perhaps even increasing the card limit per age from 10 to 11 at the same time, but I'm not certain that a change of this sort is at all necessary.

Edit: as an aside, it would be interesting to see if people would ever use something like the 1 culv shipment if the deck system was removed.


Exactly, there are unintended consequences to any change. We should approach any suggested changes cautiously and look for how we will break or make things worse. I am all for making changes, but when you recommend a change you need to have answers to all of those kinds of questions.
User avatar
India drsingh
Dragoon
Posts: 273
Joined: Jun 10, 2016
ESO: drsingh

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by drsingh »

Garja wrote:With more cards becoming viable it makes even more sense to have a limited deck because decks for specific strats would be a thing.
I mean, aside from water related cards at the moment you miss 2-3 slots at worst.
I think that limited decks add to the strategy by pre-limiting options.
The no deck thing would be an interesting additional game mode but less competitive imo.


Limiting options can only limit strategy, not add to it. The planning done before a game while making a deck is not important. Decks are easily copied and there is no time limit. But selecting cards to send in-game is all about strategy, adapting etc.
But I dont agree with removing deck feature all together. At most we can increase the limit from 25 to 30, making more versatile(after testing). In almost all games this limit would be sufficient. While also ensuring 10c/age limit. since without that the various civs will become even more polarised and impossible to balance.
Overall this feature should fall in the low priority category.

I feel to appeal to more people(old people and new alike). We need to eliminate useless cards and units. Not by removing them. But by buffing/balancing them. So that while all current builds and strategies will still work. Many new builds or options(situational/general) will be possible. Ofcourse with the meta evolving many changes will need further balancing later on. But I feel with MS investing so much on the age series we can atleast expect 2 yrs of balance patches.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by Garja »

They add to strategy because you have to chose carefully which card to sacrifice in some cases and then you also have to choose them in game in real time.
Also because you can see the opponent's deck you can make assumptions on what he will or won't be able to do.
I do agree this is a low priority thing, but I don't think adding let's say another 5 cards to the deck would make the game better, even with more useful cards overall.
Image Image Image
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: ķŒ€ ķ•˜ģš°ģŠ¤

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by n0el »

Also because you can see the opponent's deck you can make assumptions on what he will or won't be able to do.


Doesn't this simplify the game? you can scout certain things without scouting, just clicking on his deck.
mad cuz bad
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
Joined: Jun 7, 2015
ESO: Jerom_

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by momuuu »

Isn't the gameplay just fine as is?
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9729
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by Garja »

n0el wrote:
Also because you can see the opponent's deck you can make assumptions on what he will or won't be able to do.


Doesn't this simplify the game? you can scout certain things without scouting, just clicking on his deck.

I'm talking about stuff like you see he has no late game eco ups so you know you will win in the long run.
But ye it narrows the range of possible scenarios which I think is necessary for the game to not extremely unpredictable.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by Goodspeed »

Mitoe wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:
Having every option available would prove broken and benefit some civs more than others.
:hmm: how?

I'm not sure if it would truly be broken, but it would definitely benefit some civs more than others in certain situations.

For example:

Say you're playing Germany; with the deck system it is simply not worth it to have economic upgrades in your deck because you risk sacrificing your mid-game, which is where Germany is strongest.

Now, your opponent is playing Iroquois. A civ whose military could arguably compete with yours in the mid-game.
...
Sure but this would have very little impact in real games, let alone be broken. Any impact it does have is positive the way I see it. As you said it improves scaling for civs which often only focus on the early game. That way you get less of a disparity between civs when it comes to scaling. That disparity is one of this game's bigger flaws imo. Early game civs may actually have a follow-up if their timing doesn't work. This can only be good for the game imo, especially considering the average game is increasing in length.
_H2O wrote:Exactly, there are unintended consequences to any change. We should approach any suggested changes cautiously and look for how we will break or make things worse. I am all for making changes, but when you recommend a change you need to have answers to all of those kinds of questions.
Lol classic Ryan post. Gotta ask what's your actual opinion on the change?
User avatar
No Flag howlingwolfpaw
Jaeger
Posts: 3476
Joined: Oct 4, 2015

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by howlingwolfpaw »

EAGLEMUT wrote:
howlingwolfpaw wrote:i want 3 new civs. that will get me to buy.

Highly unlikely. I don't expect any new content to be released as part of the initial DEs, since that's also the case for AoE1:DE.



AOE 2 HD got expansions... another thing they can charge for. Cuz what really would I be paying for?
User avatar
Netherlands MCJim
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2818
Joined: Mar 7, 2015
ESO: MCJim
Location: The Netherlands

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by MCJim »

It would be bad to release even more civs. Is 14 not enough? Too many even if you ask me. They better focus on AoE4 instead of adding new content to AoE3 after 12 years :P
:food: My AoE3 YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MCJimAgeofEmpiresIII
:wood: My AoE3 Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/MCJim_


:coin: Age of Streaming YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/AgeOfStreaming
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 994
Joined: Jun 27, 2015

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by Dsy »

Cards dont force you to play a style. With 25 cards you can pick "rush" deck and making "ff" since you still have a lot of age 3 cards.
I actually love aoe3 card system and very strongly disagree to change a very well made fun factor for the game.
If the cards would be also balanced then it could be 2 games in one. Like rts and a card game. Looking for that.
User avatar
Hungary Dsy
Lancer
Posts: 994
Joined: Jun 27, 2015

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by Dsy »

I kinda disagree with herd decay time reduction. That changes would reduce the skill gap between the players. Right now you need to go back micro herds a lot. Then you can ignore since all herds you need nice and dead.
I feel like its good to have micro needed things for the player both the battlefield and the workfield. Its like you are working as a player also for your resources.
The only thing the game needs is balanced maps where hunts are equal.
User avatar
Czech Republic EAGLEMUT
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 05
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mar 31, 2015
ESO: EAGLEMUT
Clan: WPact

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by EAGLEMUT »

howlingwolfpaw wrote:
EAGLEMUT wrote:
howlingwolfpaw wrote:i want 3 new civs. that will get me to buy.

Highly unlikely. I don't expect any new content to be released as part of the initial DEs, since that's also the case for AoE1:DE.



AOE 2 HD got expansions... another thing they can charge for. Cuz what really would I be paying for?

AoE2:HD has expansions, but on its own it doesn't offer any content either. Same for AoM:EE. Same for AoE1:DE. You are paying for the remastering work.
Image
momuuu wrote: ā†‘theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player
User avatar
Sweden deadrising78
Skirmisher
Posts: 171
Joined: Sep 7, 2016
ESO: deadrising78

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by deadrising78 »

Why are people even discussing changing the entire game by removing cards/deck? Wtf
User avatar
Great Britain thomasgreen6
Lancer
Posts: 548
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
ESO: Thomasgreen6
Location: UK

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by thomasgreen6 »

Goodspeed wrote:
Asateo wrote:But how will AOE3 be AOE3 without decks?
Why does it need decks? Your "deck" would become the entire selection of cards for that civ. You could still have decks as a way to shortcut to cards you use very often, but imo you should always have the option to send any card. I know that to many AoE3 players it's a mechanic that they have come to appreciate, but it's also one I think we can all live without and it might just convince many naysayers to give the game another try.


Does Aiz really need a buff? With no card limit he'd be able to pop unlimited shipments from his tc :D
'I'm gonna win this and I'm just gonna enjoy it' - Tibia 2k18

http://www.Twitch.tv/thomasgreen6
User avatar
Czech Republic EAGLEMUT
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 05
Posts: 4513
Joined: Mar 31, 2015
ESO: EAGLEMUT
Clan: WPact

Re: AOE3:DE Proposal To Microsoft

Post by EAGLEMUT »

deadrising78 wrote:Why are people even discussing changing the entire game by removing cards/deck? Wtf

Uhm, why not? Now's about the only valid time to discuss it.
Image
momuuu wrote: ā†‘theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV